ワシントン条約体制下の青島における領事館警察について : 1922年膠州湾租借地返還交渉を中心に

Abstract

日本の第一次世界大戦への参戦により青島守備軍が占領行政を行っていた中国・山東半島の 旧ドイツ膠州湾租借地は，パリ講和会議での山東問題を経て，ワシントン会議開催中の1922年2月に日中間で締結された「山東懸案解決ニ関スル条約」によって中国への返還が決定される。 しかし，条約にもとづいて膠州湾租借地における全ての行政権の中国返還と軍事撤退を行った 後に，返還後に新設された青島総領事館に新たに日本警察(外国警察) が設置されて市内外で 派出所が活動したことは，新たな外国特権の設定を禁止するヴェルサイユ条約やワシントン条約に則して「条約違反」を主張する中国側と，不平等条約である日清通商航海条約に規定される「領事裁判権に付随する権利」との治外法権を根拠として主張する日本側との間で，「主権侵害」「条約違反」をめぐる対立に発展する。本稿では，中国における外国警察の駐留をめぐる国際議論について，ワシントン極東会議での治外法権撤廃問題に関する欧米列国，日本，中国の 認識を検討し，条約に明記された「領事裁判権」及び「協定関税」以外の外国権力の行使は 「主権を制限」するものとして即時撤廃すべきことが合意され，これにより中国で列国が行使していた郵便，通信，軍隊，鉄道守備隊，警察などの外国特権は治外法権としての根拠を失ったこと，そのなかで特に「外国警察」については外国軍隊と同様に「外国軍事力(armed force)」 として撤退することが合意されたことなど，第一次世界大戦後の国際秩序転換期の東アジアで のヴェルサイユ=ワシントン体制において模索された脱植民地化をめぐる問題について考察を行った。さらに，ワシントンでの山東返還の決定を引継いで北京で行われた日中間の「山東懸 案細目協定」の交渉経緯の検討を通して，(1)返還交渉中に日本が青島に新たに領事館警察を設 置したこと，(2)その際には「領事裁判権に付随する権利」という治外法権が領事館警察の根拠 として再設定されたこと，(3)この時に再設定された根拠が1930年代の日本の大陸進出における根拠に影響したこと，を明らかにしたことからは，1920年代以降に東アジアで展開される治 外法権撤廃要求や植民地支配批判を考察する際の視点としていくことを期待できるのではないかと考える。

Following up on discussions of the Shandong problem at the Paris Peace Conference several years earlier, in February1922 during the Washington Conference it was decided that the Jiaozhou concession zone, a former German possession which Japan had occupied and administered during the First World War, would be returned to China in accordance with the 'Treaty concerning Unresolved Issues in Shandong' between Japan and China. However, after the return of administrative control to China and the withdrawal of military forces from the Jiaozhou concession zone in accordance with that treaty, Japan stationed polices forces there in connection with the establishment of the new Japanese consulate-general in Qingdao. The Chinese side opposed this move as a violation of agreements made at Versailles and Washington that prohibited the creation of new special privileges for foreign powers in China. The Japanese side, however, contended that its actions were based on agreements reached in the unequal China-Japan commercial treaty of 1896, which recognized the 'special rights of Japanese consular jurisdiction' and the principle of extraterritoriality. Thus, a dispute emerged between the two nations concerning the nature of 'sovereignty infringement' and 'treaty violations' in the Shandong region. This article reconsiders problems concerning the process of decolonization as related to the Versailles-Washington system in East Asia during the turning point era at the end of the First World War. It does so by examining the understandings held by Japan, the Western Powers, and China concerning the problem of the abolition of extraterritoriality, with a focus on international disputes concerning the stationing of foreign police in China, as handled at the Washington Conference on the Far East. It also considers discussions of the immediate abolition of those foreign privileges that were perceived as limitations on Chinese sovereignty, in that they operated beyond those rights clearly stipulated by treaty such as consular jurisdiction and agreed tariffs. In relation to this, the article also examines the issue of separating those rights exercised by foreign powers in China related to postal and communication systems, military forces, railway guards, and police from a basis in extraterritoriality (especially when it came to the withdrawal of police forces that operated in ways very similar to military forces). Finally, through an examination of the course of negotiations between China and Japan concerning the "Detailed Agreement on Pending Issues in Shandong" following the decision at Washington to restore Shandong to Chinese rule, this article brings to light 1) how it was that Japan set up a new consulate-general in Qingdao during the negotiations, and 2) how doing so re-established the notion of extraterritoriality as the basis of the consular police in so far as it was a privilege connected to consular jurisdiction, and 3) how that development had an influence on the foundations of Japan's continental advance during the 1930s. In so doing, the article suggests that these issues are a useful vantage point from which to reconsider the nature of claims for the abolition of extraterritoriality and criticisms of colonial rule in East Asia during the 1920s.